Background
Bernie Marrero Jr. petitioned for an injunction for protection against stalking, alleging that Christina Duby continued a course of long-distance harassment after their relationship ended. Duby lived in North Dakota, while Marrero and his family lived in St. Lucie County, Florida. The circuit court repeatedly declined to issue a temporary injunction.
Duby appeared by Zoom at an October 7, 2025 hearing, which was continued to October 14 at her request. After Marrero supplemented his petition with allegations of additional harassment, Duby moved to attend the final hearing remotely because she could not afford last-minute travel to Florida. On October 13, the circuit court denied remote attendance on the ground that the allegations were ill-suited to presenting evidence by Zoom. Duby did not attend the next day’s hearing, and the court entered a stalking injunction lasting until January 14, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s order in a per curiam decision. Judges Gross and Levine concurred. Because the majority provided no reasoning, the opinion establishes only that the injunction was affirmed; it does not disclose the majority’s analysis of Duby’s due-process argument.
Judge Forst dissented. He would have held that denying Duby’s Zoom request on the eve of the hearing deprived her of a reasonable opportunity to attend and defend herself. In his view, Duby reasonably expected remote participation based on the prior proceeding, promptly explained that she could not afford short-notice travel, and showed no dilatory motive. He would have vacated the permanent injunction and remanded for a new hearing with sufficient notice.
Key Takeaways
- The court affirmed the stalking injunction through an unexplained per curiam decision.
- The majority did not adopt Judge Forst’s due-process analysis or otherwise explain why affirmance was warranted.
- Judge Forst concluded that the last-minute denial of remote participation denied Duby a meaningful opportunity to be heard and warranted a new injunction hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves the injunction undisturbed but offers no majority guidance on when a court may require in-person attendance after previously permitting remote participation. The dissent highlights the due-process concerns that can arise when a distant, financially constrained litigant receives only one day’s notice that an evidentiary hearing will be in person.